Re: this message board
Posted by johncodie on 6/27/03
On 6/27/03, pat wrote:
> If I am not mistaken (and I am not) this board is supposed
> to be on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), yet very
> little of what is posted here has anything to do with MCS.
> We have people insulting others, mocking sufferers or
> doctors, people ignoring any data on MCS, and so forth.
> Why is this allowed to continue? Given the current state of
> such nonsense, what makes this message board any different
> from all the other intellectually absent message boards?
> Given the supposed limitation of keeping discussions to
> MCS---as implicated by this particular message board’s
> title("MCS Chatboard")---shouldn't posts actually be about
> ~ Pat
We read your post between people that suffer and Mary
through out the year. I will go back to the 03/07/03 to
your post of a site to read. Will reference back to the
Post that Frank Fuzzell had asking Mr. Connell's opinion.
Frank has knowledge of the Florida water quality problem.
Dr. Shoemaker was asked to investigate. Current litigation
has transcribed within the past year. Dupont was a defense
in the case. As annoying it may be to you Pat, and your
interpretation of the MCS chat board. People are gleaming
as much information as the possible can out of this board.
The last post that I remember you posting Pat was between
Mary and yourself of how a MCS patient had no knowlege of
what she is talking about.
Re: question for mr connell
Posted by Frank Fuzzell on 3/14/03
Data on changes in genera prevalence for different locales?
There should be plenty, at least regarding some microbial
poulations. Lakes in central Florida have changed, there has
been a shift in algal populations to dominance by
(90% now), well documented by various entities including UF,
FDEP, and the state's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. These
are the Lake Apoka and Lake Harris chains which include Lake
Griffin. Apopka and Griffin, are two of Florida's most
The promoted or generally accepted explanation is nutrient
based: Phosphorous contamination in the water resulting from
years of farming operations adjacent to these lakes, and
discharges into the lakes. However, it seems unlikely that
nutrients alone would account for the drastic shift in
cyanobacteria, rather, P is simply a food source. This is a
major problem in this area and over $200,000,000.00 has been
spent on restoration efforts designed to remove phosphorous
from the water (marsh flow ways), so this has not been taken
It also seems unlikey algae would be the only population
changed. During the same time period that the first blooms
were occured, a new strain of fusarium oxysporum began
affecting agricultural crops in Florida. FDACS, referencing
the systemic fusarium infections in plants, referred to this
a "relatively newly encountered pathogen" in Florida.
Similarly, UF researchers noted cyanobacteria in greenhouse
operations, as new during this same time period.
Research also indicates a correlation, such that pseudomonas
aeruginosa occurs with greater frequency in alligator clutch
eggs along these contaminated lakes with adjacent farms,
in lakes which are not near agricultural lands.
shifts in microbial populations (DRB including pseudomonas
have been reported in agricultural land, with chemical
application suggested as a possible cause.
This could all be just anecdotal, bits and pieces that
don't mean anything, possibly just a sign of the times,
change. However, this thinking did prompt my question to
and I would suggest that it is worth considering, at least
the back burner. Some of the same chemicals used in
agriculture, prone to resistance, and affecting various non-
target populations, are also used in paint for example.
Possibly, with resistant populations (ag operations chemical
usage), all that is needed for an IAQ problem is adequate
moisture in a home? The treated material may provide the
Based on the above, it also would not surprise me to see
fusarium, pseudomonas, cyanobacteria, etc., in homes or
buildings in close proximity to affected agricultural land
and/or contaminated waterways. If I worked for an insurance
company, I would be hard pressed to write a policy covering
mold, algae, or other microbial problems, even when such
policies did exist, for structures in certain locations.
I am unaware of anyonein this area that has performed
to determine if there is any relationship betweem the
of homes and buildings to lakes/ag land, and reportedor
identified IAQ problems. Has this been done in other areas
such as Texas, Missouri, California... ?
Your responses are again, most appreciated. I did visit your
site, read your papers, and note that the information was
informative and objective.
On 3/14/03, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:
> Good morning, Mr. Fuzzell:
> During exposure assessments, the issue of culturing
> genera is less important than the presence of the
> organism. This thread started with a question concerning a
> lecture I gave last week at an IAQ seminar in TX. During
> that seminar, one of the questions put to me was proffered
> Dr. Godish who asked me to explain my views on the
> differences between Anderson sampling and spore traps;
> speaks directly to your question as well.
> When we set out to culture general airborne genera, we
> the media and conditions that will be most favourable to
> greatest number of species. In doing so, we recognize from
> the beginning, that we will sacrifice accuracy and we will
> bias counting in favour of some genera over others. This
> necessary “evil” is due to two facts: 1) All bioaerosol
> samplers are by their very nature size selective (theses
> been written on the particle physics of the cascade
> impactor). Since spores are of different sizes depending
> their genus, they will be biased high or low for any given
> method. 2) There is no media and growth condition that is
> equally favourable to all genera. As such, some organisms
> will be apparently missing when some methods are used, and
> apparently present in abundance when using other methods.
> This is one of the problems when comparing data from
> different sources, especially when the full methodology
> not been provided by the reporting authors. Culturability
> not the same thing as viability. Although all culturables
> were obviously viable, not all viables are equally
> Finally, the world distribution of genera is remarkable
> similar across the globe with regard to genus profiles. I
> just read a study from South Vietnam or South Taiwan
> the profiles reported by the authors (which to memory
> included the Fusaria) were remarkably similar to those
> we would find in downtown Boston Mass or Bozeman Montana.
> Cladosporia,Aspergilli and Penicillia
> lead the list in prominence. The Fusaria certainly
> enjoy global distribution.
> I would be keen to see any data that you may have on the
> prevalence or changes in prevalence of any genus for any
> locality. Please feel free to pursue this idea further.
> Caoimhín P. Connell
> (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my
> personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my
> professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or
> professional affiliates. The above post is for information
> only and does not reflect professional advice and is not
> intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
Posts on this thread, including this one